More Guns, Fewer Killings.

NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre believes the answer to these mass killings is to put armed guards at every school. What a great idea! But if we’re going to do that I think we should take his plan all the way. Most schools have more than one entrance so we will need a cop at every door. And I’m sure he’s not talking about the same guys they use as bank guards; you know, the seventy year old retired cop who can barely reach around his gut to grab his pistol. Now in addition to covering the doors to the school we better also put bullet-proof glass on all the windows. And what about recess? Those kids will be easy targets outside, so we’ll need to build tall fences around all the schools, and not chain-link fences—easy to shoot through—but rather solid cement walls twenty feet high. Let’s see, what else: Oh yeah, the obvious: body armor for all the kids and loaded automatic weapons for the teachers, just in case some deranged killer manages to get past the sleeping guard at the back door. Video cameras mounted every twenty feet with a feed into every classroom so teachers can keep an eye on what’s going on outside. That should do it. Now, let’s do the math. If there are 100,000 schools across the country (I’m just guessing at this number) then we’ll need somewhere between two and three hundred thousand cops. And if every school has say thirty teachers, that will add another 3 million armed guards giving us approximately three and a half million loaded guns at our schools. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Of course, once we get the schools fixed, we’ll have to do the same with every other public meeting ground: malls, theaters, school buses, trains, ice rinks, college dorms, bars, restaurants….well, you get the idea. Basically, we’ll turn the country into an armed camp. I feel safer already. I know it all sounds complicated and expensive but it will be a big shot in the arm for our economy: millions of new guns, billions of bullets, thousands of new jobs for cops. The list goes on. I know it all sounds complicated but I’ve wracked my brain and I just can’t think of any other solution…unless, no, that would never work. I was just thinking we could just do what other countries do and just get rid of assault weapons, but that’s a crazy idea, not to mention just how unfair that would be to those out there who just really gotta have a machine gun in their collection. No, bad idea; forget I ever brought it up.

6 Responses to More Guns, Fewer Killings.

First of all the Sandy Hook killings were not the result of assault weapons. The killer used two 9 millimeter handguns. I have no problem banning assault weapons, but even that will do nothing to curb gun violence. Does anyone really believe that any gun ban will insure our kids safety when they leave the house. Once again, In the words of Jack Bauer, the bad guys don’t play by your rules. There’s evil in the world. These killers of children are just plain evil or mentally sick or both. All the legislating in the world won’t stop them. Pointing the finger at lawful gun owners or the NRA, is the same as blaming GM everytime one of their cars involved in a drunk driving fatality.

The scalpel killed 1.2 million unborn babies in 2012. To me that’s a far bigger outrage. Those lives could have been saved by a decision. Oh but wait, that calls for personal responsibility. Maybe we can legislate that.

A Glock 9mm. clip holds 17 rounds and the sig holds 13 rounds. That’s 32 shots before reloading. That may not qualify for the technical definition of an assault weapon but it is certainly more than anyone needs at home for self defense (unless, of course you’re expecting a team of assassins at your door). This whole GM argument I keep hearing is ridiculous. One is an accident, the other is blatant murder. That being said, I’m all for working on ways to keep drunks from behind the wheel. You don’t see any special interest group advocating drunk driving.
No one is suggesting we take away all the guns, but there is much that can be done: Smart guns could be designed that won’t fire under certain conditions. More background checks could catch some of the nut jobs before they get their guns. Owners of guns could be held responsible if someone takes their guns and uses them in a crime. And all semi-automatic weapons could be banned. A six-shooter or a shotgun is more than enough protection at home.

Look, I’m truly sickened, as I’m sure most people are by Sandy Hook. All the additional legislation in the world won’t make a bit of difference. The GM argument is absolutely not ridiculous. Someone who gets into a car drunk in knowingly breaking the law. I couldn’t disagree with you more. This president and the far Left want nothing less than to take away all of our guns. This is just the beginning. You on the left accuse conservatives of being narrow minded when you’re the ones who constantly want to pass laws to restrict personal freedoms. Banning any guns won’t stop some deranged sicko from killing if they’re determined to do it. Obama is going after 1st amendment rights for video game makers now. Movies are next.. That will be interesting. The whining Hollywood Left will lose their minds. But, he can do what ever he wants. He’s the king, oops I meant president, at least for now.

First of all, Obama is far from being part of the “far left.” He leans to the right of center. If you followed his record on Homeland Security you would know that. This is not a political issue. But to the point: Nobody, including the far left, wants to take away all of your precious guns. What is desired is some sort of common sense approach to what is going on in this violent culture of ours that manifests itself in 30,000 deaths a year from guns. The fact that you or anyone else is “sickened” by what happens means absolutely nothing unless you’re are willing to accept the need for some changes regarding guns in this country. Next thing I know, you’ll be hunkered down in a bunker somewhere in Alabama waiting for the arrival of the dreaded Federal Government. And one last thing: we already have countless laws that restrict our personal freedoms. You live in a society; your wants and needs have to be tempered with the wants and needs of society at large. You don’t get to do everything you WANT to do. Like the saying goes: freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to scream FIRE in a crowded theater.

I don’t know where to begin. Obama leans to the right of center? More like to the left of the extreme left. I completely disagree with almost all of your points. Because I don’t believe in your or anyone on the left’s so called common sense ideas on the restricting guns, doesn’t mean my feeling on the unlawful gun violence means nothing. As far as hunkering down, I’m not the one who is constantly espousing some mythical conspiracy by the evil rich corporations to destroy the poor common man. This myth has been perpetrated by the Left and the Occupy freaks for years. It just doesn’t exist. You also made the statement regarding special interest groups not advocating drunk driving. Neither is the NRA advocating the illegal shooting of innocent people. I’m well aware that a free society doesn’t give anyone the right to do anything they want. I’ve heard the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater and I agree. I notice you didn’t respond to Obama’s intentions to go after video games. You and I probably are both against that. Violent video games, movies etc. should be monitored by parents. We already have a rating system in place to inform people of content. It seems that the Left’s first reaction to any lawlessness is to blame and restrict everything but the person who perpetrated the crime. Again, the bad guys could care less about any ridiculous gun ban. They would love nothing more than to take all the guns away from the innocent. That would make their jobs much easier. We’ve tried to ban alcohol, pot, drugs in general and none of it has worked. Any prevention of gun violence needs to focus on the people who fire the guns, not the gun itself.